This is the view of eyes-closed freedom. People believe in this kind of freedom when they close their eyes and assume everyone is free.
However, this kind of freedom is not empirical. It doesn’t survive scientific validation. Why? Because it is eyes-closed freedom. No need for verification.
Does this mean I am against freedom? No. Not at all. I believe in arms-open freedom. People have this kind of freedom when they can open their arms and make choices that they care about.
This other kind of freedom is empirical. It survives scientific validation. Why? Because it is open-arm freedom. You verify it when you see that people are capable to open their arms and live valued lives.
The key words here are both capability and valued lives.
First, let’s focus on capabilities. Someone who is dead is less capable than someone who is alive. Someone with polio injuries is less capable than someone without them. Someone with a good education is more capable than someone without it. Someone with money to pay for basic necessities and better technology is more capable than someone without it.
Now, let’s focus on valued lives. Someone given money to perform a job they hate is living a life that is less valued than someone given money to perform a job they love. Someone unable to spend time with their loved ones has a life that is less valued than someone able to spend time with their loved ones. Someone deep in depression and unable to savor life has a life that is less valued than someone without depression.
So, you can now see that this post is arguing for eyes-closed freedom and against arms-open freedom. Consent, when used to reduce our capabilities and valued lives, is actually a freedom-killing tool.
In other words, consent, when used to kill consent, is digging its own grave. At best it’s just a contradiction. At worst it’s the logic of a psychopath.
This is the view of eyes-closed freedom. People believe in this kind of freedom when they close their eyes and assume everyone is free.
However, this kind of freedom is not empirical. It doesn’t survive scientific validation. Why? Because it is eyes-closed freedom. No need for verification.
Does this mean I am against freedom? No. Not at all. I believe in arms-open freedom. People have this kind of freedom when they can open their arms and make choices that they care about.
This other kind of freedom is empirical. It survives scientific validation. Why? Because it is open-arm freedom. You verify it when you see that people are capable to open their arms and live valued lives.
The key words here are both capability and valued lives.
First, let’s focus on capabilities. Someone who is dead is less capable than someone who is alive. Someone with polio injuries is less capable than someone without them. Someone with a good education is more capable than someone without it. Someone with money to pay for basic necessities and better technology is more capable than someone without it.
Now, let’s focus on valued lives. Someone given money to perform a job they hate is living a life that is less valued than someone given money to perform a job they love. Someone unable to spend time with their loved ones has a life that is less valued than someone able to spend time with their loved ones. Someone deep in depression and unable to savor life has a life that is less valued than someone without depression.
So, you can now see that this post is arguing for eyes-closed freedom and against arms-open freedom. Consent, when used to reduce our capabilities and valued lives, is actually a freedom-killing tool.
In other words, consent, when used to kill consent, is digging its own grave. At best it’s just a contradiction. At worst it’s the logic of a psychopath.